(PC) Robinson v. Jones et al
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/17/2023 NOT ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations. The Magistrate Judge is DIRECTED to screen plaintiff's 14th Amendment Claim. This Matter is REFERRED back to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (Donati, J)
Case 2:22-cv-01717-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAVAUGN K. ROBINSON,
No. 2:22-cv-1717 KJM CKD P
TY JONES, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 7, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to
the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
Case 2:22-cv-01717-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are not
supported by the proper analysis.
The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. See
ECF No. 11 at 4. This screening order finds plaintiff “fails to state a claim for relief under the
Fourteenth Amendment.” See id. at 2. The magistrate judge finds there is “nothing in plaintiff’s
complaint suggesting he has a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim . . . .” Id.
“[B]efore dismissing a pro se complaint the district court must provide the litigant with
notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity
to amend effectively.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, a “district court should not dismiss a pro
se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Id. (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d
1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir.1988)). The screening order here does not meet this requirement. The
order cites no legal authority governing Fourteenth Amendment claims and does not address the
allegation that plaintiff, a transgender inmate, was injured “due to [her] sexual orientation and
gender.” ECF No. 1 at 2–3. Nor does the order provide any explanation for the finding that there
is a failure to state a claim. As a result, the order’s conclusory assertion that plaintiff failed to
state a claim for relief does not allow the plaintiff an effective opportunity to cure the purported
deficiency in the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 7, 2022, are not adopted;
2. The magistrate judge is directed to screen plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim and
provide plaintiff notice of the deficiencies, if any, in the complaint; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
proceedings consistent with this order.
DATED: January 17, 2023.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?